So far Stealthcoin only has one vote from me.
More votes could mean more people come take a look at the coin and possibly invest in it!
Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 404. (Read 748429 times)
July 24, 2014, 03:26:49 PM
There's a poll here for privacy oriented coins: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-what-anonymous-coin-will-succed-568166
So far Stealthcoin only has one vote from me.
More votes could mean more people come take a look at the coin and possibly invest in it!
So far Stealthcoin only has one vote from me.
More votes could mean more people come take a look at the coin and possibly invest in it!
July 24, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Zijn er nederlanders voor xst coin....
Are there dutch people they like this coin to.....
Are there dutch people they like this coin to.....
Jaaa
July 24, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Zijn er nederlanders voor xst coin....
Are there dutch people they like this coin to.....
Are there dutch people they like this coin to.....
July 24, 2014, 01:57:15 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Nice work! I tonly think it's to dark.
July 24, 2014, 01:52:10 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
I think the "official" forum should be run by the team...that's what I think...
Hondo here.
What follows is not the official word from the development team because we take votes on any significant decisions, but it's not obvious what's wrong with an "independently" run resource (like a forum), except that it may be taken down at any moment or may turn unfriendly towards the coin. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized, and that goes for any resources as well. In other words, we can't really stop someone from contributing. Again, these are my opinions.
My proposal is that we would recognize an "official" forum in the bitcointalk ANN OP or the website that adheres to identity standards and of course is not biased against Stealth Coin in content or in moderation of posts.
We do have identity standards, which we should publish formally, but briefly, they are:
- Plain text font: Arial
- Decorative font: Lucida blackletter
- Pallet: See the style sheet at https://www.stealth-coin.com/
- Logo: I thought it was the original that is in the wallet (which I designed), but it looks like the other devs are moving ahead with a new one. I may have missed a vote or some sort of consensus making. But whatever looks best works for me.
It looks like BTCwriter's forum doesn't quite agree with these identity standards, but we probably need to solidify them better and resolve any "artistic differences", etc.
Identity standards can be open to a community consensus or competitions. But whatever the standards are, they should be published for reference somewhere.
July 24, 2014, 01:08:11 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
I think the "official" forum should be run by the team...that's what I think...
Yesterday you told everyone to do something on their own to help, now you are saying its up to the dev team. Somewhat contradictory pal.
Can "the team" be granted admin rights? Maybe that's the way forward.
July 24, 2014, 01:01:50 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
I think the "official" forum should be run by the team...that's what I think...
July 24, 2014, 12:47:21 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
Not bad at all, are we really thinking to change the logo, I was away some days so not sure.
I am not sure about the new logo but I hope we have a contest about this. Hope Hondo have a word on this soon. I would just used the old one until the new one come.
Ok, thanks for information, I will keep an eye on this thread more regularly and see what is going on here.
July 24, 2014, 12:45:16 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
Not bad at all, are we really thinking to change the logo, I was away some days so not sure.
I am not sure about the new logo but I hope we have a contest about this as not many people like the other one. Hope Hondo have a word on this soon. I would just used the old one until the new one come.
July 24, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
Good job! I dig the black and gray...it makes it stand out from other forums and gives it a "stealthy" vibe.
Thanks, glad you liked it.
July 24, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
Not bad at all, are we really thinking to change the logo, I was away some days so not sure.
July 24, 2014, 12:36:40 PM
It doesnt, you can send coins to addresses that all belong to you, for the blockchain these transactions are not different from transactions to addresses that other people control.
As has been stated many times in this thread, staking is important to the health of the coin.
Everyone should take a few minutes to create some transactions in their wallets over the course of a few days and we'll never have any issues.
But this require trusting people. I was thinking automated wallets using staking to generate coins could be used.
This and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7947679 puts me at ease that you are reasonably committed. I do think its really important that everyone holding send transactions to a few different addresses in his wallet and keep staking 24/7, it would help a lot, even if everyone only do so with a part of their coins.
As has been stated many times in this thread, staking is important to the health of the coin.
Everyone should take a few minutes to create some transactions in their wallets over the course of a few days and we'll never have any issues.
But this require trusting people. I was thinking automated wallets using staking to generate coins could be used.
July 24, 2014, 12:03:17 PM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
Good job! I dig the black and gray...it makes it stand out from other forums and gives it a "stealthy" vibe.
July 24, 2014, 11:38:31 AM
I tested the beta version. Stucked on 15329.
Logs (-debug -debugnet -logtimestamps): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vc9lvt8vknl9eda/new_logs.7z
Two files exists in archive.
debug_15329.log - sync from 0 to 15329, then stuck
debug_after_15329_restart.log - after the wallet restart, sync still stuck
I found somethings interesting in the second file.
The wallet tried sync after 15329 block, and as I understand can't pass 15330:
15330 has hash: 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
This is correct block, I have fully synced 1.0.3.1 and 1.0.4.0 (I synced this wallet manually copied the blockchain) with this block (both on 15525 now).
I don't know why 1.0.4.0 can't pass this block when downloading it over the network, and why pass when loads from blockchain.
Logs (-debug -debugnet -logtimestamps): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vc9lvt8vknl9eda/new_logs.7z
Two files exists in archive.
debug_15329.log - sync from 0 to 15329, then stuck
debug_after_15329_restart.log - after the wallet restart, sync still stuck
I found somethings interesting in the second file.
The wallet tried sync after 15329 block, and as I understand can't pass 15330:
Quote
07/24/14 13:13:44 received: block (456 bytes)
07/24/14 13:13:44 received block 939f825d487fe9f9d93f
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 at height=11508 timestamp=2014-07-21 12:40:59 UTC for block from height=11393 timestamp=2014-07-21 09:44:03 UTC
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 nTimeBlockFrom=1405935843 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1405935843 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1406195215 hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1, bnTargetPerCoinDay=5647574804144476117109686896495768941282598351965528251131500646898935529472
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
07/24/14 13:13:44 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: check kernel failed on coinstake e70124086e21bd03430fd6a3943ce8e5567cd2c1a73ec960d5cd8445d73522f9, hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
07/24/14 13:13:44 received block 939f825d487fe9f9d93f
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 at height=11508 timestamp=2014-07-21 12:40:59 UTC for block from height=11393 timestamp=2014-07-21 09:44:03 UTC
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 nTimeBlockFrom=1405935843 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1405935843 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1406195215 hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1, bnTargetPerCoinDay=5647574804144476117109686896495768941282598351965528251131500646898935529472
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
07/24/14 13:13:44 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: check kernel failed on coinstake e70124086e21bd03430fd6a3943ce8e5567cd2c1a73ec960d5cd8445d73522f9, hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
15330 has hash: 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
This is correct block, I have fully synced 1.0.3.1 and 1.0.4.0 (I synced this wallet manually copied the blockchain) with this block (both on 15525 now).
I don't know why 1.0.4.0 can't pass this block when downloading it over the network, and why pass when loads from blockchain.
Thanks for testing.
It looks like I need to improve the beta version. I'll release a new one soon.
July 24, 2014, 11:03:14 AM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
July 24, 2014, 10:45:21 AM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
Great effort, just not sure if the "all black everything" look is as inviting to non stealthers...btw, I'm attempting to make "stealthers" a thing....
July 24, 2014, 10:30:52 AM
In another good new StealthCoin Forum is ready;
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
http://www.stealthtalk.org
let me know what ya'll think
July 24, 2014, 09:52:11 AM
I tested the beta version. Stucked on 15329.
Logs (-debug -debugnet -logtimestamps): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vc9lvt8vknl9eda/new_logs.7z
Two files exists in archive.
debug_15329.log - sync from 0 to 15329, then stuck
debug_after_15329_restart.log - after the wallet restart, sync still stuck
I found somethings interesting in the second file.
The wallet tried sync after 15329 block, and as I understand can't pass 15330:
15330 has hash: 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
This is correct block, I have fully synced 1.0.3.1 and 1.0.4.0 (I synced this wallet manually copied the blockchain) with this block (both on 15525 now).
I don't know why 1.0.4.0 can't pass this block when downloading it over the network, and why pass when loads from blockchain.
Logs (-debug -debugnet -logtimestamps): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vc9lvt8vknl9eda/new_logs.7z
Two files exists in archive.
debug_15329.log - sync from 0 to 15329, then stuck
debug_after_15329_restart.log - after the wallet restart, sync still stuck
I found somethings interesting in the second file.
The wallet tried sync after 15329 block, and as I understand can't pass 15330:
Quote
07/24/14 13:13:44 received: block (456 bytes)
07/24/14 13:13:44 received block 939f825d487fe9f9d93f
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 at height=11508 timestamp=2014-07-21 12:40:59 UTC for block from height=11393 timestamp=2014-07-21 09:44:03 UTC
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 nTimeBlockFrom=1405935843 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1405935843 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1406195215 hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1, bnTargetPerCoinDay=5647574804144476117109686896495768941282598351965528251131500646898935529472
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
07/24/14 13:13:44 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: check kernel failed on coinstake e70124086e21bd03430fd6a3943ce8e5567cd2c1a73ec960d5cd8445d73522f9, hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
07/24/14 13:13:44 received block 939f825d487fe9f9d93f
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 at height=11508 timestamp=2014-07-21 12:40:59 UTC for block from height=11393 timestamp=2014-07-21 09:44:03 UTC
07/24/14 13:13:44 CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x9fff1a95cffcdf43 nTimeBlockFrom=1405935843 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1405935843 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1406195215 hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1, bnTargetPerCoinDay=5647574804144476117109686896495768941282598351965528251131500646898935529472
07/24/14 13:13:44 >>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
07/24/14 13:13:44 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: check kernel failed on coinstake e70124086e21bd03430fd6a3943ce8e5567cd2c1a73ec960d5cd8445d73522f9, hashProof=fab4dbfab0ff32c88798e6a082c24b46bef3efb1dcec3161f779eabe01d19ab5
07/24/14 13:13:44 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
15330 has hash: 939f825d487fe9f9d93fba3ea73be0a72808f08013f262d351ca12e107136c73
This is correct block, I have fully synced 1.0.3.1 and 1.0.4.0 (I synced this wallet manually copied the blockchain) with this block (both on 15525 now).
I don't know why 1.0.4.0 can't pass this block when downloading it over the network, and why pass when loads from blockchain.
July 24, 2014, 07:47:08 AM
July 24, 2014, 07:29:57 AM
Stealth 1.0.4.0 beta Wallets for Synchronization Issues
Source: https://github.com/StealthSend/Stealth/
Windows: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8rWObF4xz1YV3l1YXJpeXdoYW8/edit?usp=sharing
Mac: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8rWObF4xz1YTjl6YkhrdkF4U2M/edit?usp=sharing
These wallets should fix a couple of synchronization issues, both on fresh downloads and for active wallets.
When synchronizing a fresh chain, these builds may pause for 30 seconds to 1 min at a few blocks, separated by 500 blocks each. These pauses should get shorter as more people use 1.0.4+ clients.
Request has been sent to download the files.
Sorry! I forgot to enable the Windows download. It's ready now.
My wallet stuck at block 15329, the syncing is pretty fast up to this point. Much improved.
edit: both wallets can't get pass block 15329
confirm stuck at same block.
Jump to: